The same quote, only different:

Gay relations are to be tolerated in a society only and can never be endorsed, no more than one can support bestiality or any of the previously mentioned deviant reproductive outcomes.

A lot can be said with a moderating (and I use that term in the grammatical sense only) dependent clause. Look at the Second Amendment. People have been fighting over the meaning of its single dependent clause for decades.

In the boldface dependent clause above, SDAI equates homosexuality with bestiality, a genuine abusive practice, and with the several deviant behaviors also being discussed, some of which are also genuinely abusive, but including polygamy, which is currently practiced in some cultures as non-deviant behavior, and also enjoys frequent mention in the Bible.

This damns homosexuality by association, as well as neutralizing the "tolerance" part in the main section of the sentence by use of inflammatory rhetoric later in the sentence. SDAI is no stranger to the use of language. I find it difficult to believe that he is unaware of the craft of rhetoric.

I also take strong exception to his use of scientific terminology with absolutely no demonstrated support except a diagram of the inside of a seashell to clothe his belief system in legitimacy. I see pseudoscience too often among creationists to tolerate it from someone who uses it to "explain" that victims of violence, including but not limited to homosexuals, basically have brought it on themselves because of their past lives. As a religious belief, I would not presume to argue with it, but that's not the way he presents it.

A lot of evil has been done to people in the name of pseudoscience, and so I oppose it. That's another subthread to this argument that you may not have noticed, because it's sporadic and on-going, for years. Whenever I call him on it, he proceeds to get personal and accuses me of emotional instability, as well as other head-patting, tut-tutting behavior. He knows this makes me angry, and does it anyway. I decline to put up with it anymore.

If by tolerance, you mean that one is obliged to remain silent in the face of statements that one believes are wrong in order to display tolerance, I suggest you ponder the results of such behavior in the past.

If you suggest that, by refusing to talk to him, I have displayed intolerance of his behavior, I agree that you are probably correct. I believe I have the right to refuse to speak to anyone who specifically and deliberately insults me because I disagree with him. He has done this, and I have followed suit. I suggest you reread the attenuated portion of the thread at CE that started all this. Unlike the statement he made here that denies he intended to attack me, his remarks were addressed to me with great specificity.

I suppose I could spend a couple of days paging back through past pages to find the supporting posts that indicate another level of injury on his part -- complaints about my not talking to him enough that might throw a little more light on this entire episode -- but I doubt that anyone else is that interested.

The Gospels advise us to turn the other cheek. I have run out of cheeks on my face, because he has slapped both of them. The only other cheeks I have are on the back of my front, so those are the ones I have turned.

Regards--
Mary Anne